Books > Humanities > Philosophy > Topics in philosophy > Ethics & moral philosophy
|
Buy Now
Conversation & Responsibility (Hardcover)
Loot Price: R2,548
Discovery Miles 25 480
You Save: R496
(16%)
|
|
Conversation & Responsibility (Hardcover)
Expected to ship within 12 - 17 working days
|
In this book Michael McKenna advances a new theory of moral
responsibility, one that builds upon the work of P. F. Strawson. As
McKenna demonstrates, moral responsibility can be explained on
analogy with a conversation. The relation between a morally
responsible agent and those who hold her morally responsible is
similar to the relation between a speaker and her audience. A
responsible agent's actions are bearers of meaning--agent
meaning--just as a speaker's utterances are bearers of speaker
meaning. Agent meaning is a function of the moral quality of the
will with which the agent acts. Those who hold an agent morally
responsible for what she does do so by responding to her as if in a
conversation. By responding with certain morally reactive
attitudes, such as resentment or indignation, they thereby
communicate their regard for the meaning taken to be revealed in
that agent's actions. It is then open for the agent held
responsible to respond to those holding her responsible by offering
an apology, a justification, an excuse, or some other response,
thereby extending the evolving conversational exchange.
The conversational theory of moral responsibility that McKenna
develops here accepts two features of Strawson's theory: that moral
responsibility is essentially interpersonal--so that being
responsible must be understood by reference to the nature of
holding responsible--and that the moral emotions are central to
holding responsible. While upholding these two aspects of
Strawson's theory, McKenna's theory rejects a further Strawsonian
thesis, which is that holding morally responsible is more
fundamental or basic than being morally responsible. On the
conversational theory, the conditions for holding responsible are
dependent on the nature of the agent who is responsible. So holding
responsible cannot be more basic than being responsible.
Nevertheless, the nature of the agent who is morally responsible is
to be understood in terms of sensitivity to those who would make
moral demands of her, thereby holding her responsible. Being
responsible is therefore also dependent on holding responsible.
Thus, neither being nor holding morally responsible is more basic
than the other. They are mutually dependent.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!
|
|
Email address subscribed successfully.
A activation email has been sent to you.
Please click the link in that email to activate your subscription.